Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords],

Chatham and District Traction Bill [Lords],

Cheltenham District Traction Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

County of Cornwall Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Galloway Water Power Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Services Bill [Lords],

Grimsby Corporation (Dock, &c.) Bill [Lords],

Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],

Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords],

Jarrow and South Shields Traction Bill [Lords],

Kingston-upon-Hull Extension Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords],

Mansfield District Traction Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Mexborough and Swinton Traction Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Mount Vernon Hospital Bill [Lords],

Newport (Salop) Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Oldbury-Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Preston Corporation Bill [Lords],

South Lancashire Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles, &c.) Bill [Lords],

Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],

Warrington Corporation Water Bill [Lords],

Yorktown (Camberley) and District Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Falkirk Burgh Order Confirmation Bill;

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

IMPORTED FOREIGN CLOTH (BONFIRES).

Mr. WELLOCK: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any bonfires of foreign cloth have been permitted in India within recent weeks; whether any such bonfires have been prohibited and, if so, how many; and whether any arrests have taken place in connection therewith?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The burning of foreign cloth is not of itself an offence and such bonfires have taken place in India, but the lighting of a bonfire, for example in a public street, may call for prohibition by the authorities. I have no information as to the number of cases in which prohibition has been found necessary or how many arrests may have taken place, but as instances of both I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to himself on the 7th March and to the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) on the 11th March.

LABOUR CONDITIONS (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. SNELL: 2.
asked the Under-secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to give the terms of reference and full personnel of the Royal Commission to inquire into labour conditions in India?

Earl WINTERTON: My noble Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to make an announcement on this subject.

Mr. KELLY: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether consideration will be taken of the views of the textile and railway workers' unions in favour of drawing the terms of reference of the Whitley Commission on labour conditions in India so as to include conditions in the Indian States within the scope of the Commission's inquiry?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not received from the unions mentioned any statement of the views ascribed to them. There is no question of the scope of the Commission's inquiry extending beyond British India.

Mr. KELLY: If any such requests are made or such opinions are made known to the Secretary of State, will they be considered with a view to the Commission going into these matters?

Earl WINTERTON: Naturally, views received from any such body would be considered by my Noble Friend, but the regulation of labour conditions in the States belongs to a branch of their internal administration and is not controlled by the paramount Power, Therefore, it would be very difficult for the terms of reference to apply to these cases.

Mr. SATLATVALA: Does the Noble Lord realise that, if uniform labour conditions are not guaranteed, in British India as well as under the Princes, there will be a tendency for employers to start factories in the native State areas, in order to take advantage of the better opportunities for exploitation?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member is raising a question of great constitutional importance, and I do not think he can have heard the answer which I have just given to the first supplementary question—that the regulation of labour conditions in the States belongs to a branch of their internal administration and is not controlled by the paramount Power. Although the paramount Power has from time to time used its good offices with the States with a view to securing conformity to the standards obtaining in British India, that is quite a
different thing from appointing a Commission to inquire into labour conditions in the States.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the States not represented on the League of Nations by a ruling Prince; and would not any action by the League of Nations, in raising labour standards, automatically include these native States?

Earl WINTERTON: The question of representation on the League of Nations is not relevant to the matter at all. There is a constitutional point at issue on which I hesitate to give an opinion without consideration. The constitutional point at issue is whether it would be proper for the Government of British India to inquire into the labour conditions in the native States, and I feel certain my Noble Friend would not be prepared to do anything of the sort without the most careful consideration. I can hold out no hope that such an inquiry will be possible.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the noble Lord not of the opinion that the purpose of the paramount Power in this matter will be defeated unless some sort of friendly arrangement can be come to with the rulers of the native States on this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a rather hypothetical question.

EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND (WOMEN).

Mr. SNELL: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will give the number of women employed underground in those mines it is proposed to exempt from the Regulations prohibiting the use of female labour underground in Indian mines?

Earl WINTERTON: In 1927—the latest year for which statistics are available—the average daily number of women employed underground in the mines in question was 28,393.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Mr. SNELL: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to inform the House of the names of the delegates and advisers constituting the Indian delegation to the forthcoming International Labour Conference at Geneva?

Earl WINTERTON: With the permission of the hon. Member I will circulate the list of names with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list of names:

The Indian Delegation to the 12th Session of the International Labour Conference to be held at Geneva, 30th May, 1929, will be composed as follows:

Government Delegates:

Sir A. C. Chatterjee, K.C.I.E., High Commissioner for India in London.
Mr. R. P. Paranjpye, Member of the Council of India.

Advisers:

Mr. A. G. Clow, C.I.E., I.C.S. (also Substitute Delegate).
Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Hudson (Deputy Traffic Manager, Calcutta Port Trust).
Mr. A. Dibdin, India Office.

Employers' Delegate:

Mr. Kasturbhai Lalubai.

Advisers:

Mr. Mukherji (President, Punjab Chamber of Commerce, Delhi).
Mr. Shanmukhan Chetty, M.L.A. (Member of South India Chamber of Commerce).
Mr. Bhabanananda Dass, M.L.A.

Workers' Delegate:

Mr. N. M. Joshi, M.L.A.

Advisers:

Mr. Shiva Rao (President, Madras Labour Union).
Mr. Kalappa (Treasurer, All-India Railwaymen's Federation).
Maulvi Abdul Matin Chaudhury, M.L.A.
Mr. G. Sethi.

Secretary to the Delegation:

Mr. A. Dibdin, India Office.

MURDER OF MR. J. P. SAUNDERS.

Mr. GARDNER: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any of the 16 persons arrested on suspicion of complicity in the murder of Mr. J. P. Saunders at Lahore, on the 17th December last, have been brought up on trial?

Earl WINTERTON: So far as is known none of the 16 persons who were arrested at the outset and afterwards released on bail have been brought up for trial. The further investigation of the case is, however, being proceeded with as fast as the circumstances permit.

EAST AFRICA (COMMISSION REPORT).

Mr. KELLY: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken to implement the Viceroy's announcement on the 28th January last that an officer of the Indian Civil Service would be deputed to Kenya to represent the views of the Government of India on the Report of the Hilton Young Commission?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has been in communication with the Viceroy for some time past, and an announcement may be expected very shortly.

Mr. KELLY: Is the announcement likely to be made within the next few days, because we can only speak of "a few days" now with regard to this Parliament?

Earl WINTERTON: I hope it will be possible to make the announcement in the course of this week.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will this officer of the Indian Civil Service get out to Kenya in time to meet the permanent Under-Secretary who is there?

Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard my answer that no announcement is possible at present.

BAR COUNCIL, RANGOON (RULE).

Mr. GARDNER: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Bar Council of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon has issued a rule, under the Bar Councils Act of 1926, debarring all those from practising, either in the High Court or the lower Courts in Burma, who have not been enrolled in the Rangoon High Court, and whether, in view of the fact that the Bar Councils Act of 1926 expressly permits advocates enrolled in the High Courts in any of the provinces in India to practise, of right, in the lower Courts in other provinces and, subject to con-
ditions laid down by the Bar Council of the High Court concerned, in the High Courts of those provinces, he will direct the attention of the Government of India to the rule issued by the Bar Council at Rangoon withholding these privileges granted by the Act?

Earl WINTERTON: A rule of the nature indicated was made by the Bar Council this year, but it contained the proviso that an advocate of another High Court might be permitted to plead and act in a particular cause or matter with the express permission of the presiding Judge. As regards the second part of the question, inquiry will be made of the Government of India as to the present position.

ARRESTS.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the final trial of the 31 persons arrested in March for waging war against the King is to take place; have the accused persons applied to the Viceroy to transfer the trial to a large presidency town where there is a High Court of Justice; if so, will the Government accede to the request; if the trial is to be conducted at Meerut will the accused persons have the usual benefit of trial by jury presided over by a High Court Judge; how many of the 31 persons are of European birth; what are their names; and what means will be afforded to their friends and relatives in Great Britain for securing proper facilities for defence?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information as to the first three parts of the question. As regards the fourth part, if the Magistrate commits the accused to trial, the case will presumably come before the Court of Session at Meerut and will be heard by the Sessions Judge with the aid of assessors. Two of the accused persons, namely Mr. Philip Spratt and Mr. Benjamin Bradley, are of European birth. As regards the last part of the question, these two Europeans will be in the same position as the other accused in the matter of the preparation of their defence.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Was it not possible for the Noble Lord to obtain information from the Viceroy as to the application for trial by jury?

Earl WINTERTON: It is a matter for the Viceroy to deal with.

PUBLIC SAFETY ORDINANCE.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the desirability of publishing a précis of the causes and aims of the subversive propaganda in India which has entailed the introduction of public safety measures?

Earl WINTERTON: When the Public Safety Ordinance recently issued by the Governor-General in Council is received here, my Noble Friend will consider the desirability of its presentation to Parliament as a Command Paper together with a brief statement of the reasons which necessitated its issue. As to any more general statement, however, I would remind the hon. Member that the trial of certain persons in India on a conspiracy charge is now pending, and it would be improper to publish any statement on a matter that is sub judice.

HONG KONG (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).

Mr. DAY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any action is being taken by his Department to abolish the system of child adoption known as mui-tsai in Hong Kong; and can he give particulars?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have to refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to questions on this subject on the 4th of February last, and to the reply which I am giving to-day to a question by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone). I would however, repeat that the system of child adoption so far as it involved a restraint on personal freedom has been made illegal since 1923. My right hon. Friend is engaged, in concert with the Governor, in considering means to prevent evasions of the law.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the statement was made in this House in 1923 that mui-tsai was to be abolished altogether; and is it not also a fact that at the present time there are more cases than there were in 1923?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With regard to the first part of the question, legislation was passed abolishing mui-tsai, but, of
course, it is a very difficult thing, where you have a large number of non-British subjects coming temporarily into Hong Kong from Canton and neighbouring provinces, to say whether or not they have got mui-tsai with them. It is estimated that since the Ordinance was passed 300,000 Chinese subjects have come into Hong-Kong with a proportion of mui-tsai.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the Governor of Hong Kong to find out why the law was not being enforced, and is the House not entitled to know the reasons which were given by the Governor why this law was not enforced?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As far as it is practicable to enforce the law, steps are being taken to do so. It is proposed, as soon as the correspondence is complete, to lay papers, and I will give a further answer on that point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be assured that papers will be laid?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes. As soon as the correspondence is complete and we see what we can do, papers will be laid.

Mr. DAY: In view of the fact that this is very serious, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to be able to lay papers or when the correspondence will be completed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I cannot say offhand. I think probably it means collecting a certain amount of further data as to the actual facts, apart from discussion of methods of law and order.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

TAXATION REFORM.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir John Chancellor has been approached with a view to expediting the change in the taxation by tithe and wergo; and whether, as this old Turkish system has already been reformed in Turkey and in those parts of the old Turkish Empire now administered by France, he can say when Sir John Chancellor expects to have the reform complete in Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The High Commissioner is well aware of the desirability of expediting these changes so far as circumstances permit. It is not, however, possible for me to name a date for their completion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with Sir John Chancellor, so that we may know when this reform is expected to be complete?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that these questions and answers, together with supplementary questions, are sent out. We have already done this, and the matter has already been taken up by the High Commissioner.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC AND CRIME.

Viscount SANDON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statistics as to liquor importation and consumption and crime resulting therefrom in Palestine for comparable periods since the British mandate and before the War?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I regret that I am not in a position to supply comparative statistics as desired by the Noble Lord.

BRITISH WEST INDIES (BROADCASTING).

Viscount SANDON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to free the British West Indies from American broadcasting monopoly by arranging for a British service to cover the area between British Guiana and the Bahamas?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware that there is any reason to apprehend the establishment of an American broadcasting monopoly in the British West Indies and adjoining Colonies, but I can promise that any proposals which may be submitted for the establishment of a British service will be carefully considered. No such proposals have reached my right hon. Friend hitherto.

Viscount SANDON: Is it not a fact that the people of the West Indies at present are only able to get the American broadcast?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That obviously depends on the sensitiveness of their receiving sets.

Mr. HURD: Would it not be well to take steps to ascertain from the Governors exactly what the present position is, and what steps are possible to overcome this American broadcasting monopoly?

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for a British subject it is practically impossible to get any British news when he is in the West until he gets east of Bermuda?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is a fact that it is impossible to get reception in certain areas and that it is extremely difficult to cut out American stations in the Caribbean area. As I have said in my answer, any proposals for the establishment of a British broadcast transmitting station in that area will be most sympathetically considered.

Viscount SANDON: Is not the matter of such importance to the Empire as a whole that the right hon. Gentleman's Department should take some initiative in it?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the Noble Lord knows, the question of broadcasting in the British Empire was discussed at the Governors' Conference, and no doubt will come up both at the Imperial Conference and at the next Colonial Office Conference. It consists of technical difficulties much more than political difficulties.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Cannot the broadcasting people put up a station there?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not the British Broadcasting Corporation. They have no power to do so under their charter.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that, so far from being a matter of importance, it is largely a matter of Imperial fudge?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not at all.

GOLD COAST (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Viscount SANDON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the experience of Mauritius in a
similar situation will be taken into consideration in connection with the drink problem on the Gold Coast?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Governor of the Gold Coast has recently appointed a Commission, which is taking evidence of every factor relating to the sale of spirits in that Colony, and my right hon. Friend will bring my Noble Friend's suggestion to his notice. It must be remembered, however, that conditions are not the same in the two Colonies.

KENYA (HARRY THUKU).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a communication from the Kikuyu natives respecting the liberation of Harry Thuku; and, after the seven years' banishment of this man against whom no charge was ever proved, will he be allowed to return to his family?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The case of Harry Thuku was referred to in a petition, of which my right hon. Friend has a copy, addressed by the Kikuyu Central Association to the Governor of Kenya. The Governor proposes to discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend while he is in this country; but I do not anticipate that it will be possible to come to a decision until after his return to the Colony.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when this discussion takes place that the Harry Thuku trouble arose just at a time when they reduced wages by, I think, 50 per cent.?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, there are a good many factors. The whole question is connected with the settlement of various outstanding broader questions of policy, and that is why we cannot anticipate any final commitment in regard to this matter.

MALTA (VATICAN DELEGATE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give the House as to the mediation to be
exercised by the Vatican between the clericals and the Labour Government of Malta?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir. I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject. I might add that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in referring to the Government of Malta as being a "Labour Government."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently this Labour Government in Malta—for there is a Labour majority—has been criticised by an alien priest in that country, and are there any provisions in the laws of Malta which enable people to be expatriated back to their own country if they interfere in local politics?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That raises a very thorny question of policy, and I cannot accept the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's description of the point as fully accurate, but, as he knows, this matter is the subject of inquiry. An Apostolic visitor is inquiring into the circumstances' of this particular case, and I think it would be very unwise for any of us, in any quarter of this House, to attempt to prejudge the examination of that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the judgment of the Apostolic visitor of more importance and more decisive than the judgment of this House as to the freedom of the local government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is what the right hon. Gentleman's answer said.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has misunderstood me. Pending the report on all the circumstances, I think it would be very unwise that we should make up our minds, one way or the other, until we have the full evidence before us.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is not the real explanation that the Government do not want to commit themselves pending a change of Government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I not not know whether the right hon. Gentlman means a change of Government in Malta. That seems likely, but it has nothing to do with it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I suppose it is the report of our Governor that is to be the information provided to the right hon. Gentleman, not the report of the Apostolic visitor?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Obviously, the British constitutional authority is the Governor, not the Apostolic visitor, but it is very desirable in these matters of religious discipline, affecting religious orders that we should ascertain what the official views in this matter are.

Mr. LANSBURY: What does the Home Secretary say about it?

IRAQ (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. WELLOCK: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the points of dispute between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Iraq and on the possibility of the deadlock in the negotiations being overcome?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would invite the attention of the hon. Member to the replies which my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 24th of January, to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) on the 28th of January, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) on the 20th of February. I am at present unable to add anything to those replies.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long we are likely to be before we get the information?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It may be some time yet.

MALAYA (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. WELLOCK: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Workmen's Compensation Bill in Malaya has yet been passed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir; the Bill was passed by the Federal Council on the 30th January.

DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any telegrams or communications from the. Supreme Moslem Council protesting against the grant of the Dead Sea Concession to Mr. Novomeysky; and whether he is taking any action to safeguard Mohammedan interests?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received no such communication from the Supreme Moslem Council; but, as has been explained in another place, the President of that Council sent a telegram on the subject to my Noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, about a month ago. As regards the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the provisions of the draft concession, which have been accepted by the Government of Palestine and by the Arab Government of Trans-jordan, will adequately safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of both territories.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend taking any steps to meet the objections of the Mohammedan population, which is very considerable, with regard to this concession.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not know on what the hon. and gallant Gentleman bases that supposition. I know the objections of the National League in this country, and of certain people in Palestine, who are organised by that National League, but upon what ground the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks for the Government of Transjordan or the Arabs of Palestine, I do not know.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it a fact that the so-called Supreme Moslem Council is only a small body representing extreme Mohammedan elements, and that it is a case of the deep calling the deep with regard to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury)?

IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Report issued by the committee appointed by the Irish Free State
Government to inquire into grievances of British ex-service men has been considered; whether it is proposed to act on the suggestion contained in paragraph 133 of that Report in regard to Lytton entrants transferred to the Irish Free State; and whether a formal claim for compensation or for re-entry to the British Civil Service has been received on behalf of those officers.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to answer this question. A claim for compensation or for transfer to the Civil Service in this country, which has been made on behalf of Lytton entrants in the Irish Free State Civil Service, has been forwarded through His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State. The claim follows the lines of a suggestion in paragraph 133 of the Report of the Committee referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's question. The matter is now under consideration, but on the information at present available to my right hon. Friend, he does not wish to hold out any hope of its being possible to take action in the direction desired.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these British ex-service men were transferred without the option of remaining in the British Civil Service, and do not come under Article 10 of the Treaty at all; and can he hold out some hope of compensation being given to them, as they are completely neglected by both sides?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put down a further question to the Dominions Office, as obviously I cannot answer.

Mr. THOMAS: In view of the change of front with regard to the Irish loyalists, is there no opportunity of the Government again changing their view?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Sir W. de FRECE: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if it is within the scope of the operations of the Empire Marketing Board to arrange public culinary displays of selected Empire and Home products which it is endeavouring to popularise; and, if so, what work is being done on these lines?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to answer this question. Yes, Sir. Such displays are within the scope of the activities of the Empire Marketing Board. In the past demonstrations of this character have been made at a number of Exhibitions in which the Board have participated, and similar demonstrations are planned for the future.
As the list of exhibitions at which cookery demonstrations have already taken place is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the List of Exhibitions at which cookery demonstrations have taken place:

Belfast Empire Exhibition and Shopping Week, 23rd May, 1927—28th May, 1927.
Advertising Exhibition, Olympia, 18th July, 1927—23rd July, 1927.
Imperial Fruit Show, Manchester, 28th October, 1927—10th November, 1927.
Cookery and Food Exhibition, London, 15th November, 1927—24th November, 1927.
Ideal Home Exhibition, Olympia, 28th February, 1928—24th March, 1928.
Imperial Fruit Show, Manchester, 19th October, 1928—27th October, 1928.
Empire Exhibition, Cardiff, 30th October, 1928—10th November, 1928.
Cookery and Food Exhibition, London, 23rd November, 1928—11th December, 1928.

Similar demonstrations are also being arranged to take place at the North East Coast Exhibition, opening 14th May, 1929.

TRAVEL ASSOCIATION (GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIPTION).

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department the amount of the subscription promised by the Government to the Travel Association; and are any special films being taken with the assistance of his Department for the purpose of assisting this association in its work?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): His Majesty's Government has included in the Estimates the sum of £5,000 as a subscription towards the funds of the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland. As regards the second part of
the question the value of film propaganda is fully realised and is being considered by the Publicity Committee.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a promise will be made of a further subscription of a like amount the following year?

Mr. HACKING: Of course, the Conservative Government next year may renew the subscription, but I do not know.

BRITISH MEAT (MARKING).

Mr. DAY: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any steps are being taken by his Department for the purpose of preparing a scheme of marking British meat, so that the public will know at a glance whether the meat purchased from their butchers is English or Foreign?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Ministry has in hand the preparation of a voluntary scheme for grading and marking the three top qualities of home-killed meat on wholesale meat markets. The National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations has assisted in defining the three grades and the Ministry is now considering in conjunction with the National Farmers' Union and distributors' organisations, where and in what way the scheme could best be given a fair trial. The schema would incidentally enable all buyers of graded and marked meat to know that it is home killed, but since the scheme would be only applicable to a portion of the home-killed supplies and would be voluntary, it would not distinguish all home-killed from foreign.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when it is hoped that a decision will be arrived at?

Mr. GUINNESS: Negotiations are going on, and, if we can get a settlement, we shall hope to bring the scheme into operation as soon as possible.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Are we to understand that the word "English" in the question includes "Scottish"?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, I think the Scottish trade have their separate mark. We have a national mark for this country with a map of England on it; the national mark for Scotland has a map of Scotland on it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In the case of Scottish meat, will that be distinguished from English by this mark; is it not notorious that it is the best beef?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

HEAVY-HORSE SOCIETIES (GRANTS).

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what increase, if any, has been made in the scale of heavy-horse grants since 1914; and how much those grants cost last year?

Mr. GUINNESS: The scale of grants to Heavy Horse Societies has not been varied since 1914. The total sum paid in respect of such grants to societies in England and Wales in the past financial year was £7,517.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increased cost of maintaining studs, which has resulted in the decline of heavy-horse breeding and threatens to produce a serious shortage in a few years' time, he can see his way to recommending an increase in the scale of grants for heavy-horse breeding?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have recently received representations from the Shire Horse Society suggesting an increase in the scale of grants for heavy-horse breeding, and the matter is now receiving my consideration.

LOANS, SCOTLAND.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state why, in the case of a landholder to whom a loan has been granted under Section 7 (7) of the Act of 1911 by the Board of Agriculture and who quits his holding, the unpaid portion of the loan is no longer continued to the incoming landholder as was formerly the practice?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): In view of the principles laid down in the Culreoch case in 1926, the Board of Agriculture were advised that the previous practice of continuing loans to holders entering into vacated holdings is out-with the powers conferred by Section
7 (7) of the Act of 1911. Applications for such loans cannot, therefore, be entertained.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is it intended to alter the rule so as to go back to the previous practice? Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that this may be a great hardship to the incoming tenant, and that it was never intended that the Board should get back this loan at very short notice, but that the loan should be spread over a 15-year period?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Any alteration of the rule would certainly require legislation.

FUEL RESEARCH STATIONS, GREENWICH (CONTRACT).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that tenders were invited last July for constructing an addition to the fuel research station at Greenwich; that although the tender submitted by Mr. Arthur Logan, of Pagden Street, Batter-sea, who has been doing work on Government contracts for 17 years, was the lowest, this particular contract was passed on to the party next higher in price; and will he cause proper inquiries to be made into the complaints made by Mr. Logan?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The First Commissioner is aware of the fact stated by the hon. Member. He has made full inquiry into the complaints made by Mr. Logan, and is satisfied that proper action was taken in the matter.

EGYPT (FOREIGN AIRCRAFT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the actual agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Administration prohibiting the passage of foreign civil aircraft over Egyptian territory, in view of the fact that the proposed treaty with the late Sarwat Pasha was not ratified?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No agreement such as that referred
to by the hon. and gallant Member exists. What my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary pointed out in reply to a question on 4th March last, was that the point of view of His Majesty's Government in the matter was perfectly well known, since a Clause covering the question had been agreed upon with the late Sarwat Pasha, and included in the published draft treaty.

EX-GERMAN COLONIES (MANDATES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the subject of Germany being given a mandate for one of her former colonies was last under discussion; and what was the attitude expressed by His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The mandates over the former German colonial territory (which derived from the Treaty of Versailles and not from the League of Nations) were definitely allotted to the existing holders and there has never, so far as I am aware, been any suggestion that any of the existing mandatories desired to be relieved of its responsibilities. Our position was explained to Germany at the time of the Conference of Locarno and has been more than once re-stated since. If a new mandate were to be called into being or, in the unlikely event of an existing mandate being vacated, we should be prepared to consider the claim of Germany as of any other Great Power, Member of the League, but we can take no engagement in advance in regard to so hypothetical a contingency.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the first part of the question as to when this matter was last under discussion?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It has not really been under discussion since, I think, the Locarno negotiations. No doubt there have been references to it since that.

Mr. THURTLE: May we take it from the reply that the view of the Government is that it is a definite advantage and gain to have these mandates?

RATING AND VALUATION (HULL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a communication from the town clerk of Hull, with a resolution of the City Council passed on 11th April, last, drawing attention again to the hardship caused by the operation of the Rating and Valuation Acts, 1925 to 1928, and regretting the unwillingness of the Minister to meet a representative deputation from the lord mayor and corporation; and whether he will reconsider his refusal to receive such deputation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received the communication to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. As he has already informed the City Council and the hon. and gallant Member, the large increase in the gross value attributed to small properties in Hull, which substantially exceeds the corresponding increase in the majority of other rating areas, is a matter within the discretion of the local Rating and Assessment Authorities; no action which my right hon. Friend could take could affect the essential facts of the situation, and, that being so, he cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by the attendance of a deputation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Corporation of Hull may be trusted to know whether anything will be gained by an interview with him and his experts? How is it that the Minister refuses a definite request to receive a deputation from the whole Corporation—this not being a party question at all—to discuss these highly technical matters?

Sir K. WOOD: There has been considerable correspondence between my right hon. Friend and the Corporation, and it is the opinion of my right hon. Friend that nothing would be gained by receiving a deputation. If the Corporation have any suggestions to make, they could make them in writing, but really there would be no useful purpose gained in receiving a deputation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is difficult to discuss these matters by correspondence. When the right hon.
Gentleman the Minister receives a special request for conference on such a matter, is it not his duty as Minister to accede to such a request?

Sir K. WOOD: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, my right hon. Friend is always endeavouring to carry out his duties. If the Corporation have any suggestions to make in the matter, it is difficult to see why they cannot make them in writing. It is really a matter for them.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the assessments complained of were made by the local assessment committee, or whether there has been an alteration made by the central valuer?

Sir K. WOOD: The Central Valuation Committee, as the hon. Member knows, has no jurisdiction. The Central Valuation Committee is only a committee for giving advice. The Assessment Committee has entire responsibility.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have a good deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. Is not the real difficulty this, that the indignation and dissatisfaction aroused by these Acts is so widespread that if the Minister undertook to receive all the deputations—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-morrow night.

ARTIFICIAL SILK WORKS (FUMES).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any reports from his inspectors regarding the emission of fumes from artificial silk works?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. The chief alkali inspector has made a report on this subject, and my right hon. Friend is arranging for its publication.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether the Home Office entered a prosecution against this firm?

Sir K. WOOD: There is no firm referred to in the question.

POPULATION.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 38.
asked the Minister of Health what has been the annual increase of population in the United Kingdom during each year since 1924?

Sir K. WOOD: According to the Registrar-General's Statistical Review, the estimated populations of the United Kingdom for the years 1924–1927 inclusive were 44,886,000, 45,040,000, 45,218,000 and 45,435,000 respectively, indicating an average annual increase during that period of 183,000.

LONDON LOCK HOSPITAL.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 39 and 40.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether the three women members of the staff dismissed by the board of the Lock Hospital two years ago were exonerated by the committee of inquiry; and, if so, what restitution it is proposed to offer them for the action taken;
(2) whether he is now in a position to announce the reforms undertaken by the board of the Lock Hospital; whether these will include a change in the personnel of the board and in the secretarial staff?

Sir K. WOOD: For the reasons fully explained in reply to questions by the hon. Member on the 14th and 21st March, my right hon. Friend does not as at present advised propose to publish the Report of the committee, and in these circumstances he is reluctant to discuss any particular views which they may have expressed, and any action taken thereon by the board of the hospital, until the board have had a reasonable opportunity of dealing with the recommendations of the committee as a whole.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Do not the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health realise the very great prejudice to the people concerned, who have been dismissed and are given no opportunity of ever knowing whether they are exonerated or otherwise? With regard to the answer to the second question, do not the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend realise that the people who are asked to decide on these reforms are the very people who have been reported
upon, and is it not time that an entirely different attitude was taken up towards this matter?

Sir K. WOOD: As the hon. Member knows very well, this is a very difficult matter, a very difficult situation. My right hon. Friend really desires to do the best he can in the interests of the hospital and has given an undertaking to the House that he will very carefully watch the proceedings which the board of the hospital are taking. He is keeping in constant touch to see that the recommendations contained in this report are being properly carried out. I hope the hon. Member will not press me to discuss individual cases. I think he may rest assured that my right hon. Friend is doing all he can in the interests of the hospital.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the very unsatisfactory answer which has been given to-day and the unsatisfactory answers given before, I must give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

FISHERY HARBOUR DUES, SCOTLAND.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state what reduction of Scottish harbour dues will be made in the approaching herring-fishing season as a result of the Budget proposals?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The proposed contribution by the Fishery Board for Scotland towards the cost of reductions of fishery harbour dues will require a vote of money to the Fishery Board in the new Parliament. It is proposed to present an estimate for the purpose as soon as possible in the new Parliament but it is obviously impossible at present to give the precise date at which Parliament will vote the money necessary for putting the proposals into operation.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman say by how much the dues will be reduced?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, the amounts and actual terms will have to be evolved after very careful inquiry by the Fishery Board.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will it not be necessary for election purposes to say exactly what is going to be given?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If we understand correctly that the dues are to be reduced—

Sir J. GILMOUR: indicated assent.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In that case, does the right hon. Gentleman think that this procedure will be as unpopular in Caithness as it is said to be in Hull?

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand from the original answer that in the preparation of the Budget Estimates no allowance was made for the actual amount to be allocated for this purpose, and that this is a mere promise, and nothing more?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, no, Sir; but, of course, the actual details of where these grants will be made and the amount of them require investigation into actual circumstances.

Mr. THOMAS: Do we understand that there is no definite arrangement between the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what is to happen in this case?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the position this, that you are afraid to tell Scotland what you propose to do?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Am I not right in anticipating—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons absorbed into industry in each year since 1924?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I am having a Table prepared giving this information, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

RADIUM.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the National
Radium Trustees will have power to expend any of the funds in an endeavour to discover sources of supply independent of the Belgian company?

Sir K. WOOD: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. The functions of the trustees as defined in paragraph 82 of the Radium Sub-Committee's Report will not extend to this purpose.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to launch the public appeal for funds to purchase radium; and when the precise form of the organisation to be set up will be decided?

Sir K. WOOD: The Government have no information as to the date of an appeal though they hope it will be made in the near future. The precise form of the organisation recommended by the Radium Sub-Committee, and accepted in principle by the Government, is already under discussion, and will, I hope, be settled in a very short time.

Mr. MORRISON: Does that mean be fore the General Election?

Sir K. WOOD: I hope it will be within a very few days.

Dr. DAVIES: Are we to understand that the radium trustees are already appointed and functioning?

ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the formal statement of representatives of the Russian Soviet Government that Russia, following upon the resumption of diplomatic relations with this country, is prepared to place orders in Great Britain amounting to £150,000,000, including an order for cured herrings to the value of £500,000, and having regard to the long-continued trade depression, especially in the herring-fishing industry, the summer season of which is now approaching, he will forthwith reopen negotiations with the Soviet Government for a resumption of diplomatic relations and the revival of trade between the two countries?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. Presumably the hon. Member is referring to the statement
made by Monsieur Piatakov, the President of the Soviet State Bank on 5th April. The relevant portion of his speech, as reported in the "Pravda" of 6th April, reads as follows:
If we can come to an agreement satisfactory to both parties and if at the same time we can work out a financial programme satisfactory to both parties, we could easily place in England a programme of orders of industry for 150 million pounds sterling….
And by a satisfactory financial programme M. Piatakov appears to have explained that he means an agreement for a guarantee on the lines of the draft treaty of 1924 "properly extended and supplemented."
From this, it will be seen that the placing of orders in the United Kingdom is made to depend not only upon a resumption of diplomatic relations between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government, but also apparently upon the granting of extensive new credits to that Government. Thus no satisfaction is offered for the abuses of which His Majesty's Government complained while a demand is made for a revival and extension of those financial provisions of the 1924 draft treaty which His Majesty's Government declared to be unacceptable.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman is not certain whether these are, in fact, the terms on which the Soviet Government would be prepared to trade with us, would it not be worth while, having regard to the importance of this question and the importance of a revival of trade in this depressed industry, to get in touch with the Soviet Government and see whether a satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the Soviet Government desire at any time to make definite proposals to His Majesty's Government, there are sources of communication open to them.

Captain GUNSTON: Is it not a fact that the proposed 1924 Agreement depended on the guarantee of a loan to Russia [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered that question.

Mr. SHINWELL: You have not answered it, and you are afraid to answer it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Foreign Secretary has just stated that the 1924 Agreement depended on guaranteed credits. Was it not a free condition of such guarantee that a satisfactory arrangement should be come to for the payment of debts to private individuals in this country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My answer to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) was "Yes," and apparently that answer did not reach the benches opposite. If further information is wanted about the Agreement, the hon. Member had better consult the text.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that we can get as many orders from Russia as we like if we not only supply the goods but the money to pay for them as well?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That was the policy of the 1924 Agreement.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the first essential to a re-establishment of trade with Russia is the re-opening of diplomatic relations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; trade has never been interrupted. The Soviet Government have placed orders in this country though never to the extent of the credits open to them by the amount of goods our people have bought from Russia.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the Soviet Government have very large trade balances in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

LEE CONSERVANCY WORKS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 48.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of the grant which has been made to the cost of carrying out the Lee Conservancy new works and navigation improvement scheme between Bow and Hackney; whether any stipulations have been made that in return for payments of this grant 50 per cent. of the men engaged on the work must be taken from distressed areas; whether the work is in the main such as is suitable for unskilled labour; and how many men were
registered as unskilled labourers at the West India Dock, Hackney, East India Dock Road, and Stratford Exchanges on Monday, 15th April?

Mr. BETTERTON: The grant approved is the usual grant for non-revenue producing schemes on which the local authority agrees to employ men from the distressed areas up to 50 per cent. of the number of men engaged on the work. The capital sum in this case is £63,900 and the authority responsible will receive 75 per cent. of the interest and sinking fund charges on any loan raised to meet expenditure for the first half (up to 15 years) of the loan period, and 37½ per cent. on interest and sinking fund charges for the remainder of the loan period (up to 15 years). The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the fourth part, I regret that without much labour I am unable to give the information in the precise form set out in the question. There are considerable numbers of unskilled labourers unemployed for varying periods in the areas mentioned, but the unemployment there is not so heavy, nor so prolonged, as in the distressed areas from which half of the labour will be recruited.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the distress in this area is the usual condition of casual labour and unemployment, and how can the hon. Member answer my question by saying that it is not the same; and is he aware that the authority itself on Saturday unanimously agreed to ask the Government to withdraw the condition that they must employ these men owing to the thousands of men in that area who are looking for a job when only about 150 can be employed?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware that an application was made on Saturday, but, if the hon. Member says it was, of course I accept his statement. At the same time, the original application was made by the Lee Conservancy well knowing the conditions attaching to it.

Mr. LANSBURY: When the Labour Department gets this application from the Lee Conservancy will they reconsider the matter, seeing that there are literally many thousands of men standing round wanting this kind of work?

Mr. BETTERTON: That would involve a change of the policy which we have often debated in this House, and which I cannot modify or alter in answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. THOMAS: If the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that he is bringing unemployed people into a district where there are already more unemployed than are necessary to do this work, is it wise to proceed in this way?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is entirely a matter of opinion upon which the views of the Government and the opinions of other people differ very much.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that all the public authorities from the London County Council down to the borough councils have protested against the policy of the Government which will accentuate and make more terrible the problem of casual employment in London?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware that any protests have been received from the local authorities concerned. That is a question of policy which we have very often discussed in this House, and I cannot elaborate it any further at the present time.

ALIENS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour how many aliens were permitted to enter this country during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1928 for the purpose of taking up employment other than as domestic servants; what trades such persons were permitted to enter; and how many unemployed persons were on the live registers of Employment Exchanges in the United Kingdom for each of the trades in question at the latest date in 1928 for which figures are available?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a tabular statement I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following Table shows the number of aliens permitted to enter this country during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1928, for the purpose of taking up employment other than as domestic servants.

Nature of Employment
Permits.


Concert Musicians
489


Musicians (bands, etc.)
122


Theatrical and Vaudeville
1,831


Foreign correspondent clerks, volunteers, trainees
1,310


Mosaic workers
15


Engineers to erect and supervise
351


Beet Sugar Industry
103


Fishing, Seine net whale and cod splitting
11


Hotels
331


Teachers of foreign languages
421


Hospital Nurses (probationers)
98


Film industry
94


Miscellaneous
657



5,833

I regret that the form in which the unemployment statistics are compiled does not enable me to answer precisely the last part of the question, but as my hon. Friend will appreciate, the aliens would not have been admitted had there been suitable British workpeople available.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (RURAL AREAS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 50.
asked the Postmaster-General-when it will be possible to publish the list of rural stations and post offices which it is proposed to equip with telephone call-boxes under the new financial proposals of the Government; and whether opportunity will be offered to those places which are not included to urge their claims on the authorities?

The ASSISTANT-POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): A survey of all rural post offices and stations now without telephone facilities is being made, together with details as to cost, appropriate method of connection with existing system, etc., etc. This must necessarily take some time, but, meanwhile, instructions have been given to press on with the task of connecting up in cases where the work involved is known to be relatively small. I cannot at present usefully say more on this question.

LETTERS (EXAMINATION).

Mr. THURTLE: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of new cases in the last three years in which he has given authority for
the letters of individuals to be opened during their passage through the post?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): It would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to whether the number has been large or not in order that the public may know whether this practice has been carried out upon an extensive scale?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The word "large" is a comparative term. All I can say is that when the public interest demands this practice, I carry it out, and not unless.

ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT (ANNUAL LEAVE).

Mr. KELLY: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men and women employed in the Royal Army Clothing Department who receive an annual holiday of at least one week's duration with pay?

Mr. PENNY (Lord of the Treasury): The number of employés on the strength of the Royal Army Clothing Department who, subject to the prescribed qualifying service, are eligible for annual leave with pay of six or more days, in addition to the regulated public holidays, is approximately 190.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the small number who are given a week's holiday with pay each year, will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to prevail upon the Secretary of State for War to extend the holiday payment to others?

Mr. PENNY: My right hon. Friend will do so if necessary.

Mr. KELLY: It is necessary, I can assure you.

PERSONS BOUND OVER (GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 53.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent geographical restrictions being imposed by magistrates among the conditions on which persons are bound over?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. If in a given case it seemed to me that the geographical condition imposed was so unreasonable that it ought not to stand, it would be open to me to advise an exercise of the Prerogative.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SMALL DEBT) AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order [14th March], "That the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee," read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

LEASEHOLDERS (SECURITY OF TENURE) BILL,

"to enable leaseholders in occupation of houses or premises whose original leases were granted for a term of not less than twenty-one years to maintain their tenure," presented by Mr. Clarry; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [15TH APRIL].

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — CHARGE OF INCOME TAX.

1. "That—

(a) Income Tax for the year 1929–30 shall be charged at the standard rate of four shillings in the pound, and in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds at the same higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as were charged for the year 1928–29;
(b) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1928–29 (other than Sub-section (3) of Section twenty-nine and Subsection (2) of Section thirty-two of the Finance Act, 1926, and Section twenty-eight of the Finance Act, 1927) shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1929–30;
(c) the annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedules A and B for the year 1928–29 shall be taken as the annual value of that property for the same purpose for the year 1929–30.

Provided that the foregoing provision relating to annual value shall not apply to lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the administrative county of London with respect to which the valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, is by that Act made conclusive for the purposes of Income Tax.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

Orders of the Day — REPEAL OF DUTY ON BETS.

2. "That the excise duty payable on bets made with a bookmaker shall cease to be chargeable as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine."

Orders of the Day — REPEAL OF RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.

3. "That the railway passenger duty shall cease to be chargeable as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine."

Orders of the Day — CONTINUATION OF DUTIES CHARGED BY SECTION 7 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1925, ON HOPS, PREPARATIONS OF HOPS, AND BEER.

4. "That—

(a) the duties of Customs charged by Section seven of the Finance Act, 1925, for a period of four years beginning on the sixteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, on hops and extracts, essences or other similar preparations made from hops, and the additional duty of
650
Customs charged by the said Section for the said period on beer, shall continue to be charged for a further period of four years from the date on which the aforesaid period expires, except that hop oil shall, as from the said date, cease to be chargeable with duty as a preparation made from hops and in lieu thereof a duty of customs at the rate of twenty shillings the ounce shall be payable on hop oil during the said further period; and
(b) the additional excise drawback payable under the said Section for a period of four years beginning on the sixteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, in respect of beer shall continue to be allowed for a further period of four years from the date on which the aforesaid period expires; and
(c) Section ninety-eight of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (which relates to the charging of duty on the quantity of goods ascertained by weight, measure, or strength at the time of the actual delivery thereof), shall apply to hops when cleared from a warehouse for home use."

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The Resolution which has been read to the House covers the Income Tax and Surtax—by which latter name the Super-tax is now described—for the new financial year, and I understand that on this occasion a review of the position of the Income Tax and Super-tax in this country is in order. In fact, from many points of view, this will be almost the last opportunity we shall have of discussing a question of this kind prior to the General Election. Already on the placards of Great Britain notices are appearing to the effect that, if we succeed at the coming General Election, taxation will be substantially increased, and there is no doubt that a large part of the appeal of Conservative opponents will turn on an argument of that kind. Accordingly, it is important this afternoon to look at the strict position of our national income, at the actual burden of Income Tax in this country, and at other important considerations, because the cold facts of the situation very seriously modify statements of the kind which are now offered to the public.
What is the income of the British people? We have, as regards the year 1924—the last complete year for which an effective analysis has been made—the view of two distinguished economists, who place it at rather more than
£4,000,000,000; and, in an address to a learned society a short time ago on problems of this kind, Mr. A. W. Flux, a distinguished civil servant, placed it at about £3,800,000,000. For our purpose this afternoon it will be sufficient to take the round figure, in post-War conditions—because, as between 1924 and the present day, there has been no substantial alteration—at about £4,000,000,000. The next point is to ascertain what proportion of that great amount of national income comes under the actual review of the Inland Revenue authorities. Fortunately, we are in possession of the last Report of the Board of Inland Revenue, to the 31st March, 1928, and hon. Members will find that the total gross income, as it is called for this purpose, is round about £3,000,000,000, or just a little less than that sum. That is £1,000,000,000 short of the total income of the British people, but, of course, it is much in excess of the actual sum on which Income Tax is strictly applied in Great Britain.
When we turn—and this, of course, is vital to the Resolution before the House—to the actual analysis of the Board of Inland Revenue, we find that, by a series of deductions for reliefs and allowances, and the ordinary provisions of a long series of Acts of Parliament, the actual taxable income is boiled down to about £1,300,000,000. In other words, it is far less than the gross amount which is reviewed for Income Tax purposes in this country. Of course, I do not suggest for a moment that there are not other phases of this question, such as the extent to which the tax is passed on. Problems of that kind we shall notice a little later in this Debate; but, in any event, out of the total of £4,000,000,000, and the gross total for Income Tax purposes of £3,000,000,000, tax falls on a little more than £1,300,000,000.
A few days ago, in defending our position as regards the Budget as a whole, I tried to compare the broad distribution, in existing conditions, of the income of the British people, to illustrate what a very large and very real sacrifice is being made by the overwhelming majority at the present time. We saw that what is called the wage field in British income is not very much more, according to some authorities, than
£1,600,000,000. The rest of that vast sum of £4,000,000,000 goes overwhelmingly to a smaller and highly influential section of the community. I do not suggest that it goes to them entirely, but that is the broad, general division. Those are the plain facts with regard to the total national income and the tax burden on it at the present time.
Let us notice the numbers of the people who are affected. The Ministry of Labour tells us that in Great Britain there are about 21,000,000 or 22,000,000 people in gainful occupations; but the number who come under the review of the Inland Revenue Department is not much more than 5,000,000, or under existing conditions, about 4,500,000; and, of those 4,500,000 people, approximately one-half, according to the latest Report, or 2,250,000, are direct payers of Income Tax. I imagine that this number would include also Super-tax payers. Of course, there is no validity in the argument, which is sometimes suggested by those who are opposed to our views, that this small section of the community is carrying the greater part of the annual taxation. We shall show later that that is very far from being the case; but, in any event, this is not numerically the urgent matter that it is sometimes suggested to be, having regard to the fact that there are 22,000,000 people in gainful occupations, and an electorate of 27,000,000 people.
There is, however, another test which we should like to apply when emphasis is laid on the great burden of Income Tax or of direct taxation as a whole. Let it be remembered that what we have to keep in view is not the nominal burden of 4s. in the £, which is the standard rate, but the effective rate—the rate that actually falls on an acknowledged ability to pay, after the allowances and reliefs have been taken into account. It is a rather striking fact that, during even the extraordinary conditions following the War, the effective rate in Great Britain never exceeded, as this Annual Report of the Board of Inland Revenue shows, about 34d. per taxable £, that is to say, a little less than 3s.; and at the present time the effective rate stands at just 2s. in the £, or half the standard rate. We all know the qualifications which attach to the standard rate.
There is one further point as regards the large-scale incomes of this country, which I think justifies a great deal of the argument from these benches. In the times of artificial prosperity, during the War, and for the two years immediately after the War, it is not surprising that there should have been a marked increase in the number of Super-tax payers; that is those paying in excess of the old £2,500 limit now reduced to £2,000 per annum. But if there was to be anything like a proportionate sacrifice in the years of depression we should have expected to find either a marked arrest of that tendency in that period or indeed a definite diminution. While the yield from Super-tax did not come up to expectation in the past financial year, taking a review of the experience of recent years the number of Super-tax payers—and I am not forgetting the reduction in the limit—

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Is that making allowance for the alteration in the value of money?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not dealing with the value of money at the moment but with the actual numbers of Super-tax payers. The number of Super-tax payers increased from 80,000 in the year 1919–1920, to a figure between 95,000 and 100,000 people enjoying these incomes in existing conditions. There is no doubt that the bulk of the income which is covered by that number is something between £500,000,000 and £600,000,000, and I suggest, on the cold facts of the situation, that our case is justified, that in those years of loss and sacrifice a section of the community contrived to maintain and in some cases to increase undeniably their financial power and strength. Those are the broad features of the Income Tax position. The House will naturally turn to a comparison of the actual amount paid in pre-War taxes and what we are likely to pay in times to come. We have always argued, and we do today, that we stand for direct as opposed to indirect taxation. The worst form of indirect taxation is that which falls on the food-stuffs of the people and, accordingly, it is part of our case to see it entirely removed. Luxuries and comforts are in a different category, but in minor comforts there is ample room for a con-
siderable reduction. In any case we rest our appeal on the fundamental test of ability to pay, and there can be no doubt that a direct tax comes much nearer to that than any indirect tax can ever achieve.
What are the actual facts of the case? I have no doubt hon. Members will recall the glorious days before the War when an Income Tax of 1s. 2d. in the £ did not produce more than £41,000,000 or £42,000,000 per year. It produced large sums during the artificial prosperity of the War, as it was bound to do. So far as we can judge, and this is the important consideration, it has apparently settled down at some figure between £235,000,000 and £240,000,000 per annum, and if the Surtax is taken into account we are getting from these two sources an amount of about £300,000,000 a year. If that is to be the total I am going to suggest that it is part of our duty—and here we are entirely in the field of administration—to see that the tax is faithfully collected, and in a Debate of this kind the Chancellor of Exchequer should tell us what steps he has taken in the administrative field to attain that result. The House will agree, whatever it thinks of recent Acts of Parliament, that it is singularly unfair to the masses of our people and to the bona fide Income Tax payers if a certain class year after year are able by one device and another to escape their just contributions to the State. What are the facts in this problem? The Royal Commission on Income Tax in 1919—I always regret that many parts of its programme have not been passed—reported that evidence had been taken that in four War years there had been a loss to the National Exchequer of about £100,000,000, due to evasion of one kind and another, but it was only fair to point out that that included an element of Excess Profits Duty. The more cautious figure which was taken and not seriously disputed was that we were losing between £5,000,000 and £10,000,000 a year by evasion or by the inability of a restricted staff to overtake fully a very large and very complicated field. I should like to pay a tribute from this Box to the manner in which the officials are doing their work.
4.0 p.m.
Certain steps have been taken in this field of Income Tax and Super-tax, yielding about £300,000,000 a year, to deal with evasion, but I am afraid they must
be much more faithfully applied. In the Finance Acts of past years we have tried to reach that evasion of Surtax and Super-tax by failure to distribute an adequate proportion of company profits. We have noticed the position of people who sell cum dividend and immediately afterwards purchase ex dividend, again for the purpose of evading tax. I think it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us in reply to this Debate, how far the steps taken in quite recent times have been effective in preventing leakage under these heads and how far he contemplates; other administrative devices to see that everything is collected. I have indicated that we shall press for a faithful collection of revenue by every device calculated to stop that leakage or evasion, and we shall certainly resist the argument that this is merely another encroachment of bureaucracy in our midst. On every occasion in this House in my recollection since 1918, when steps have been proposed for the effective collection of Income Tax and for the purpose of preventing evasion, all the arguments of anti-bureaucracy have been called into play. That was a marked feature of the discussion on the Revenue Bill some years ago, and it has been revived on every occasion since. I must not in a Debate like this indulge in literary references, but I remember some years ago reading a pamphlet of an Oxford scholar entitled, "Fresh Light on Roman Bureaucracy," and, oddly enough, the very arguments used in this House, especially since 1918, were in substance the arguments used all that time ago in opposition to the tax gatherer, never a popular job, and I suppose they have as much validity now as then. But, in any case, the tax must be collected, and evasion prevented.
I come to another question which, no doubt, will figure largely in the coming Election. Many hon. Members will suggest that the burden of an Income Tax of this kind is, in effect, a penalty on industrial enterprise in this country, and more particularly on that part of enterprise which is conducted by joint stock companies and others. They will suggest that some kind of concession should either be made in the law or in the administration of this part of the tax.
We are fortunate in having the detailed view not only of the Committee on National Debt and Taxation, but also the Balfour Committee on this subject. These Reports do not justify the contention of many hon. Members opposite. But on the mechanism of the thing there is a great deal of misunderstanding in public debate. Many seem to suggest that these reserves of profit are directly taxed, whereas, of course, what actually happens is that a company pays tax upon the whole of its profits, and then recovers at standard rate from the debenture, preference or other shareholders in the distribution to which they are entitled, leaving the tax assessed on this reserve in the company's care. The other side of the House has urged that that is a penalty on development of business, or progress, or actually on the provision of employment. I do not want to fall into the error at this Box of suggesting that taxes are not burdens. That is no part of my case.
Comparisons have been made of the amounts put to reserve in Great Britain in pre-War and post-War conditions, and it was part of the criticism of the existing industrial order that it actually put less in normal times to reserve than was done in Germany or America: in other words, they made a more conservative distribution of their profits. It was about one-third in Great Britain before the War, but the latest evidence suggests that it has been increased to one-half. In any event, a recent review of a very large number of industrial undertakings with a profound bearing on unemployment and other important effects, showed that sums of £164,000,000 or more per annum were in fact being put to reserve in this way. The fundamental difficulty in a matter of this kind is that it is quite impossible down below in the principles of this taxation to draw any real distinction between what individuals put to reserve for saving, progress, development or whatever it may be, and what these companies achieve. All real authority has never disputed the fact, that if any concessions of this kind were made, other than such concessions as are in force, it would be virtually impossible to prevent widespread abuse. That view is supported both by the National Committee on Debt and Taxation, and more recently, although more generally, by the Balfour Committee on British Trade.
The real fact arrived at is this: It is not so much a question of these reserves as the effect of the Income Tax in Great Britain on the savings of all sections of the people, and more particularly on that section of savings necessary for our financial and industrial equipment. What is the position of savings in Great Britain at the present time? Within recent times, an analysis has been made of what are called the small scale savings, that is, of millions of our people in the building societies, in the Post Office Savings Bank, in the Trustee Savings Banks, in Co-operation, the trade unions and friendly societies and a large number of other bodies. It is found that the aggregate amount of these small scale savings is about £1,700,000,000 or £1,800,000,000. Of course, that looks a very large sum on paper, but the first calculation we have to make is this: It is a sum attributable to many millions, in fact the great majority of our people in so far as they save at all, or have an opportunity to save. In the next place—and this is a vital point—it is only about 12 per cent. of the aggregate wealth of this country, which is a further indication of the relative economic disadvantage of the position of that great body of our people. Moreover, the whole argument of our economists—and I quote them here not in our own movement but in other movements—is that in a healthy society or community there should be greater opportunity for the mass of the people to save, in other words, a better distribution of this opportunity, and the power and security which come from it. When we remember that in post-War conditions and in the depression since 1920 between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 of the British people have lost between £700,000,000 and £750,000,000 a year in income, we see that their chance of effective saving must have been seriously affected.
All these considerations ought to be taken into account in the optimistic picture with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to introduce his Budget statement. The other side is the side of industrial savings, that is, the amount which is available to-day for all kinds of industrial development calculated to increase employment. That was estimated by the Committee on National Debt and Taxation as something between £350,000,000 and £400,000,000 before the
War, and it was thought that if allowance were made for increase in population and the rise in prices, the figure to-day should be perhaps about £600,000,000 and that the actual amount that we were saving in Great Britain was probably £150,000,000 per annum short of that total. We need not be surprised by that. We have had eight years of industrial depression. We have lost 2 per cent. of our place in the world export trade. We have enormous burdens from many points of view, in deadweight debt and in the taxation attendant upon it. All these things are perfectly true, but as industry and commerce recover, these savings will increase. It is no argument at all for failing to impose upon those sections of the community well able to pay an appropriate contribution. And, in any case, it is quite reconcilable with our claim that the savings should be distributed over a much wider field. In this quite brief summary this afternoon, I have tried to outline our position towards this Income Tax problem. We do not dispute that it is a large amount, but we plead, that direct taxation as opposed to indirect taxation is entirely in the national interest.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What is the amount?

Mr. GRAHAM: £230,000,000 Income Tax or £300,000,000 Income Tax and Surtax together per annum. We do not dispute that these items are £100,000,000 in excess of the total pre-War Budget in this country. We have to look at the other side, however, in the load which Great Britain has to carry, and we will seek every method of genuine economy, and while we have no desire to increase the total burden on the people, it will be invariably our aim to see that it is adjusted to the shoulders of those undeniably able to bear it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. SNOWDEN: There is a strange reluctance on the part of the Treasury Bench this afternoon to make any explanation of the important Resolutions they are submitting to the House of Commons. One would have thought that
when a proposal was made to repeal a tax which has aroused so much trouble and public interest, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have taken the first opportunity to put before the House some reason to explain this sacrifice of revenue. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is waiting for a later opportunity in the course of this Debate. A few days ago he invited me to read some of my old speeches upon a particular subject. Well, I paid the Chancellor of the Exchequer the compliment of spending half an hour this morning in reading some of his speeches about the Betting Duty. I had hoped that I might be able to entertain the House by reciting the hopes and expectations with which this bantling was born into the fiscal system of this country, but the reading of those speeches touched a tender spot in my heart, and I thought it would be cruel, in view of the present apparent feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, to remind him of his high expectations and his disappointed hopes. He stated, when making a brief reference to this matter in the course of his Budget speech, that, when it was first introduced, it was received with enthusiasm and acclamation by practically the whole country and by newspapers so wide in their character as the "Morning Post" and the "Church Times." I remember no new tax proposal in my time which was so opposed on its introduction by all sections and all classes, and especially by those who are interested in the moral and religious welfare of the country, as the right hon. Gentleman's Betting Duty. It was opposed by a considerable number of the Members of his own party, and it is certain—and I am quite sure that the statement will not be contradicted—that had it not been for loyalty to their party and the fear of the party Whip, the opposition to that tax would have manifested itself in the Tory ranks to a still greater extent.
The duty underwent considerable modifications before the proposal reached the stage of the Finance Bill. I am not sure whether in all subsequent Budgets, but certainly in some of them, the right hon. Gentleman has still further modified and changed the tax. Now he comes forward with a proposal to abolish the duty on bets altogether, because it has been, not only a failure from a financial
point of view, but, to use his own words, "something of a fiasco." When the right hon. Gentleman first proposed the duty-he estimated a revenue from it of £6,000,000 a year. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman for being out with his estimates, because there was no very authoritative material upon which anything approaching to a correct estimate could be made. We had the report of the Committee on betting over which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) presided, and, if I remember rightly, it was stated in evidence before that Committee that the turnover from betting was something like £25,000,000 a year.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: £200,000,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman, when proposing the tax, took, I believe, an estimate of £170,000,000. He was wise to discount the figure of the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman was not content with basing the estimate of this tax upon a turnover of £170,000,000; he made, I believe, a further reduction of something like £50,000,000, and it was upon an estimated turnover so reduced that he expected to obtain his revenue. It has failed. Why has it failed? In view of what I said just now about the absence of any reliable material for estimating the amount of betting transactions, I was one of those, because I accepted the evidence given by the hon. and learned Gentleman's Committee and the figures supplied by the revenue authorities, and indeed, I believe, I said it in this House more than once, who believed that the right hon. Gentleman would get his revenue. He did not. Why? Probably there were many reasons, but the chief reason, I think, has been one which I stated at the time, namely, that of all taxes which ingenuity could have proposed, no tax was so liable to variation or had so many loopholes as one of this character. Betting is a thing that can be carried on secretly and without any very effective measure of public control. It is undoubtedly the fact that the yield of the revenue falling so far short of what was estimated upon the turnover is due to the wholesale evasion of the duty. That fact, as I stated at the time, is the strongest condemnation that can be brought against any public tax.
There is, perhaps, one other reason to explain the failure of the duty to yield
the expected revenue. It may be, and doubtless is, that the estimate made by the hon. and learned Member's Committee as to the amount of betting transactions was altogether exaggerated. I hope that is the case, because, if it be so, the magnitude of the betting evil is not so great as was assumed. Whatever may be the reason, as a tax-raising instrument this duty has failed lamentably. The hon. and learned Member stated more than once, I believe, in the course of our discussions that he strongly supported this child of his and that in no country where a betting duty has been introduced has it ever failed as a revenue-raising instrument; the revenue upon it was an expanding revenue. The hon. and learned Member looked to the experience of such a tax in this country as being likely to repeat the experience of the Dominions and elsewhere where such a tax is in operation. He, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer and like myself, with regard to the yield of the tax, has been disappointed.
What are the other reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has stated for making this proposal which the House is now asked to confirm? He said that he was doing it not only, or not altogether because the tax had proved such a fiasco, but he was doing it in order to remove temptation out of the path of the Labour party. Sometimes strange bedfellows are brought together, and we had, it is quite true, at recent by-elections, respectable and very wealthy bookmakers giving what support they could to the Labour candidates, definitely under the impression that the Labour party when it came into office after the General Election would not repudiate the pledges it had given in regard to the repeal of this duty. The right hon. Gentleman realised that the repeal of the duty was inevitable. He has proposed it in this Budget with the expectation, I suppose, of withdrawing from the Labour party very valuable election support. I need hardly say that I never courted the support of the bookmakers. I opposed the introduction of the Betting Duty for reasons which I often stated, and sometimes at great length, when the proposal was before the House of Commons, and those of us who opposed the Betting Duty not merely on its fiscal side but on the ground of our moral objections to the State being in any way interested in such a thing have
had to submit to an association with those with whom, I am quite sure, we have not, upon most political questions, any sympathy or anything which would make a real alliance.
However, the right hon. Gentleman is going to repeal this tax, but he is going to raise, he told us, a monument which will perpetuate the remembrance of the right hon. Gentleman's unfortunate incursions into this possible sphere of taxation. He has left the totalisator, and I understand that we shall later be asked to agree to a very small duty upon the bets which are made through this mechanical device, but I would like to say, that I do not think that it will be wise for those who are now putting capital into the erection of totalisators to assume that that is an institution which is going to be permanent. The continuity of policy does not apply to domestic legislation, and it would be perfectly open to a succeeding Government to repeal an Act of Parliament, which, let it be noted, was carried in the teeth of the most strenuous opposition in the House of Commons. The Bill only passed its Second Reading by a majority of two. It never would have passed the House of Commons had it not been that the Government neglected other important legislation in order to find time for the passing of this Measure.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member must not lead the House into a discussion upon the totalisator policy.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I had no intention of doing that. I was replying to a statement that was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing briefly with this proposal in his Budget speech. He is retaining the totalisator, and he proposes to impose a small tax upon bets which are carried through that instrument. As a main substitute for the repeal of the Betting Duty he proposes to impose upon the bookmakers a telephone charge of £40 a year, retaining the £10 bookmaker's certificate. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the business side of the betting industry, I believe it is so-called, as to be able to estimate the incidence of this proposed telephone charge, but it seems to me that it is going to work out very unfairly as between bookmaker and bookmaker. I can well understand that a very wealthy firm of bookmakers can afford to pay this charge,
but it must be a very heavy charge upon the one-man bookmaker, doing a comparatively small amount of business. I have not heard the views of the betting men upon this matter, but it may be that the right hon. Gentleman has been in communication with them and has received from some of the bookmakers an assurance that this proposed change will not be altogether objectionable. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been in communication with the men who are most likely to be hard hit by such a charge.
He proposes, or he expects, shall I say, to raise about £500,000 of revenue by this telephone charge, and the bookmaker's certificate. He told us the other day when announcing the repeal of the Betting Duty, that it had been found that it was not worth while. I told him that when he first introduced it. It would not have been worth while If the tax had realised the original estimate of £6,000,000 a year. It would not have been worth while because of the outrage that the proposal committed upon the consciences of hundreds of thousands or of millions of people in this country. The right hon. Gentleman in the present proposal, for the sake of a paltry half million pounds a year, is perpetuating this very close association between the State and the evil of betting. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not worth while. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman come down to the House this afternoon in a white sheet and admit the complete failure of his Betting Duty? Why could not he in penitence and as an atonement have wiped the whole thing off the Statute Book? That was the only right thing that the right hon. Gentleman could have done, but he has not done it. I suppose it will be left to somebody else to repair the moral mischief which the right hon. Gentleman has done. I said that I was not sufficiently acquainted with what the operations of this proposed change will be; but our objections are of a more general character. They are based on the grounds which we have stated fully in the numerous debates that have taken place in past Sessions, when this Betting Duty has been under consideration. The right hon. Gentleman's tenure in the high office which he has held will be remembered for many things, but this fiasco in his
financial career, in addition to the totalisator, will be one of his monuments.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Everyone, I am sure, will be pleased and relieved to see and to hear the right hon. Gentleman disporting himself in a sphere where he is not likely to do any serious harm; in a sphere in which he can use that beloved word, which so readily leaps to his lips, "repudiate," without carrying such far-reaching echoes throughout the world. For my part, I should be the last to begrudge him any momentary satisfaction which he may enjoy by gloating upon the failure, upon what I myself called the fiasco, of the Betting Duty. He is entitled to say: "I told you so." He is entitled to claim from the House of Commons the respect and admiration which it should rightly extend to those who have proved to be true prophets. But, of course, in his general attitude towards the taxation which it has been my duty to propose during this Parliament, he has placed himself in a position where in the event of any failure by any chance he certainly would be able to say: "I told you so," because there has been no tax of any kind that has been proposed about which he has not made the most confident prediction of failure. It was not upon the Betting Duty that I would particularly advise him to read his previous speeches; it was upon the Silk Duties that I would advise him to consider what he has said in the past.
I frankly admit that the Betting Duty has not succeeded. What are the reasons? I am not going to embark upon a lengthy discussion of the tax.
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him,
or to dispraise him. I have only risen because I did not wish it to be thought that the Government were affording any opportunity for complaint by not sufficiently participating in this tranquil and even lifeless Debate. The main reason why I have felt that we should revise this tax has been the fact that it was honeycombed with evasions. There is no doubt whatever that the bookmaker, the betting fraternity, if I may use such a term in that connection, have been more elusive, less capable of being drawn into the meshes of our fiscal regulations than any other similar body of citizens upon whom it has been sought to lay a burden. Great unfairness arose in regard to
the reputable man who had premises, a fixed and definable and recognised position or pitch, which is the expression used in this connection, I think. By the way, the right hon. Gentleman's word "bilked" might really come in here, and might more appropriately have been applied to the bookmakers who have succeeded in evading a tax than to the Government of a friendly country. Undoubtedly, great injury was inflicted upon the reputable bookmaker who paid the tax, because he was actually undercut by his less identifiable rival. Therefore, from that point of view I have felt that it was very difficult to defend the continuance of a tax on turnover.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we ought to make a total repeal of the Duty because it attacks a great moral and conscientious principle which, apparently lays it down that on no account must any fiscal discouragement be placed upon an evil like betting. I never felt myself that there was any sound valid good sense behind that argument, although I admit that it has played its part in public thought. When the tax was first introduced, it was extraordinary to me what little part that argument really played in the opposition to the tax. On the contrary, I received deputations from the Free Churches and other religious bodies who were, undoubtedly, protesting against the tax but who, at the same time, did not conceal from me the dilemma of thought in which they found themselves. It was apparent to me that there was a strong religious and moral feeling which felt that if the total volume of betting could be diminished as a result of an impost placed upon it, the matter was one which was well worth considering in a cool and dispassionate spirit.
These Licence Duties, which will, of course, be the subject of full discussion when we meet again after our excursions in the country, will be easy to collect. I am quite ready to discuss their details if I should still be responsible for them. I am not necessarily absolutely adhering to the exact form of the Clause which will appear in, the White Paper, but in principle all the inquiries which we have been able to make from a very large section of the betting industry have led us to believe that this revised form of Duty can quite easily be collected, and without undue hardship. Take the case
of the bookmaker who deals with very small sums of money and uses a single telephone for that purpose. That question has been raised, but for the present I rest myself upon the Duties, as they are set out in the White Paper, and I have no doubt that the revenue that I have mentioned can be raised in this way.
As to the totalisator, the right hon. Gentleman is going to repudiate that as well as other things. He has endeavoured to throw, as far as possible, that element of uncertainty over the initiation of this new instrument which he is so ready to cast over so many spheres of our daily life and of our fiscal law. We all know how he has declared that there is a whole series of duties which I shall not mention, which he is going to repeal if he has the chance. Industries are kept in a state of uncertainty as to their development because of his indulgence in pure political partisanship; and no doubt in those few words he has done the best he can to do as much harm as is possible in impeding the introduction on our racecourses of an instrument which undoubtedly will have a most cleansing and healthy effect upon the whole life of racing in this country, and also upon the conditions and the character of our racecourses. It is only a small blow that he can strike, and a blow at only a small object, but he strikes it, with that universal malevolence which seems to have taken hold of him at this moment—and quite unaccountably, for he tells us that he believes he will soon be in a place of power and authority, and one would have thought that he would have been mellowed by the prospect and put into a good humour, and also restrained by a sense of approaching responsibility. Notwithstanding that, he chooses to cast this universal web of malevolence, prejudice and uncertainty over a wide field, and in that wide field he has not ignored the smallest as well as the greatest things.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want to make reference to a point which has been made on the moral aspect of the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the fact that certain religious organisations have made protests against this duty, but he said that at the same time they had some consideration for the possibility of the duty perhaps restricting
the evil. My recollection of the protests which were made is that the strength of the protest rested on the argument that the duty was a departure from a great moral principle, and that to adopt the duty would be in a large degree rather to establish this unfortunate power for evil in the country than in any way to restrict it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I expected, followed up what right hon. Gentlemen had said from Opposition benches by pointing out the possibility of the Opposition falling into the same unfortunate depths as he himself has fallen into.
I should have liked to hear from the right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches not only that they would support the repeal of the duty, but also that they would oppose the proposed alterations in the charges to be made, and that they would go further and declare that, if they came into office and power, the Opposition would proceed, as the Government of the day, to adopt a line of action which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself admitted in this House could easily be taken, namely, to bring in and pass through the House a Bill for the complete prohibition of the whole gambling and betting business in the country. The truth is that the departure made by the Government has gone along such lines as to establish, not only the totalisator, but also the Government Control Board, whereby in very direct fashion, by the ministerial appointment of representatives on that Board, we have direct and conclusive proof of criminality arising in the country through betting and gambling, and that by the direct incentive of the Government of the day. That situation, I feel, has to be emphasised far more emphatically than has yet been done in this House. The present question of whether the proposed duty itself will be an improvement on the old duty is unimportant; the real point is the far greater tragedy that the Government, particularly a Government with the designation of Conservative, has sunk so low as to adopt a plan which goes down to the very lowest depth of profligacy by the encouragement of, and the extraction of money from, that which is known to be to the working classes a formidable force, bringing them into great disaster, and then, taking it into a diff-
erent level of society, going to the Stock Exchange, with immeasurable results, the effects of which will be seen to be prevalent in many phases of society.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: What have you done to stop it?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: So far as opposition in this House is concerned, I did my share in opposing the duty, and, if I am returned to the House of Commons, I shall certainly do my best in the future if the Government bring forward any such measure. Indeed, I am doing it now; I am endeavouring to give an incentive to the Labour party, so that, it they come into office, they will not only proceed with the repeal of the proposed alteration in the duty, but that they will stand as a Government, as they ought to stand, for the carrying through of a measure for the prohibition of the whole gambling and betting evil in the country.
I want the Labour party to take cognisance of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself challenged the Labour party on this score. While they were going into the Lobby with the present speaker in opposition to the duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "I challenge the Labour party that they are not really going to take the logical stand which the Member for Dundee has done, by actually proposing and going forward with the prohibition of the evil." Upon that occasion, the Chancellor went further and answered the expected point as to the impracticability of the proposal. He said: "I say you can do it," and he proceeded there and then to explain exactly how it could be done: by stopping it in the Press, stopping it in the post, and laying down quite clearly what should be done, "if," he said, "you have the courage to face it."
I do maintain that if there is an issue of moral importance to be submitted to the country at the coming General Election, this is that issue. The whole of the moral forces of our country have a great opportunity. The Churches, and the general forces which stand for the propagation of the moral interests of the nation, ought to enter the arena with an emphatic demand to the politicians who claim their votes that this thing shall be faced with courage, with determination, and with the application of principle, not
simply to exact revenue from it, but to cut it out. I do not agree that the Government propose this in any way to restrict the evil, and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not put forward that contention. He had the expectation of raising at any rate about £6,000,000. He admits that that is found to be impossible, but that was his proposal. If you are going to sink to such depths for political profit, you have another system in the country known as prostitution. Is the Conservative Government going to deal with that evil on a similar basis?

Mr. SPEAKER: May I remind the hon. Member that the Resolution before the House is simply to repeal the Betting Duty?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Yes, but at the same time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has made reference to the totalisator, and to the Control Board.

Mr. SPEAKER: I interrupted the right hon. Member for Colne Valley immediately he raised that question, and I told him that he must not deal with it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is quite true, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid no attention to your restriction, and went on to deal with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is out of order, not I.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer only replied to the points to which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) had already referred, and nothing more. If he had gone any further, I should have stopped him at once.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The discussion of the proposal to repeal the duty has proceeded, from both the Opposition Front Bench and from the Government Front Bench, on the footing that the tax has been a failure, and that there is to be the substitution of fresh proposals. I am taking that line. Fresh proposals are to be put forward. I assume now from your definite ruling, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot proceed with the line of argument as to what sort of fresh proposals may be made nor even to deal with the actual fresh proposals, so I confine myself to
this, that the repeal of this duty is not a departure from the course previously taken by the Government because of any immorality involved in the thing itself, but that there has been a failure so far as the amount of money produced is concerned, and now there is a substitution of certain charges which will produce a very much less amount. I submit that the Government are still in the pillory; the Government have still to face this indictment, that a Conservative Government which makes such extravagant publication on political platforms and from the political hustings about evils which they have abolished, is guilty of such conduct as this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is seeking to get some hundreds of thousands of pounds out of that which is producing the degradation of our country among all sections of society, and, if there is anything which shows the absolute humbug of the whole situation and what a travesty is that which we call our political business in this country, that is it. You do not put that upon the hustings as developments which you have achieved; there is nothing on the great posters in the country telling us about the raising of the standards on the racecourses, or the machine which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says is for cleansing them. God help us! The totalisator—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already told the hon. Member that he must not raise the question of the totalisator.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am sorry to have raised that standard in any way at all. I will leave it at that. I am sorry to be under a difficulty about getting at it in the proper way, but I simply want to emphasise that no opportunity of this kind should be missed, when a Conservative Government with a powerful majority makes an acknowledgment that so far as monetary results are concerned, this tax has been a failure, but they have still got to endeavour to extract something out of this iniquitous source of evil in the country. I was just on the point of submitting that, if proof were wanting, this was proof of the abject cowardice of the Government on a great moral issue. You ought to have special posters all over the country showing what the Government have done regarding gambling and betting, so that the people can really
understand what a Conservative Government means, and what it has come to. Talk about Primrose Day celebrating the memory of Beaconsfield! Beaconsfield did have some records, and remarkably good records, of helping the interest of the working-classes in the years between 1874 and 1880. That is true. I should be very much surprised if any-one who wished to honour the memory of Beaconsfield would say that he would have descended to the position to which the Conservative Government of to-day have sunk by proceeding to the racecourse to carry through the system, while failing to grapple with the thing from the logical point of view. The Government are only playing to certain class elements—a common procedure for a Conservative Government—and that in itself constitutes a powerful argument why the Conservative party should receive a smashing blow at the General Election.

Sir FRANK MEYER: This time I do not think that I can honestly repeat the congratulations that in the past I have offered to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, for his sincerity. On this occasion I think he has completely stepped over the border-line. He has followed the example of an hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Opposition Bench—I think it is the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones)—by dragging in a loathsome practice known all over the world—I shall not mention the name—and trying to insinuate that because the Conservative party has tried to draw a revenue from the taxation of betting and the diminishing of betting, it would be likely to try to draw a revenue from that loathsome practice, the traffic in women. I appeal to the hon. Member to control not only his tongue but his mind before he makes such a disgraceful charge across the Floor of the House.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It is just as likely to happen as this.

Sir F. MEYER: I am sorry that any man's mind should sink so low as to make such a charge and even to believe it. The hon. Gentleman has tried to encourage all those who sit around him to adopt as an election cry the suppression of betting altogether by every possible legislative enactment. The number of
people sitting around him is evidence that that particular movement is not likely to have very great success. There is a challenge which I and others have thrown out to the Labour party on many previous occasions when they have adopted the high moral attitude with regard to this tax. Obviously if hon. Members do not believe that it is right to draw a revenue from the taxation of betting, although they are prepared to do so from the taxation of drink, they should go into the highways and byways and say, "We will prohibit betting and make it illegal. We will stop the publication of betting odds in the papers; we will prosecute people in every possible way under the present law, and if we get into power we shall amend the law to make betting impossible." I know very well that the Labour party will never do any such thing. However sincere the hon. Member who has just spoken may be on that topic, when the Labour party adopts the high moral tone about betting it is talking mere cant and humbug. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman that the tax is degrading the whole Empire. I advise him to pay a visit to some of the outlying parts of our great Empire, to Australia and India and other countries. He will find the same source of revenue there. He will find Governments and very often Labour Governments—there have been several in Australia in the last 20 years—drawing a revenue from what he calls "this loathsome vice." I advise the hon. Gentleman to be a little more careful before talking about this Government being the first to degrade the Empire.

Mr. B. SMITH: If he goes to India he will find a great deal more than you have mentioned.

Sir F. MEYER: That may be true, but at present we are discussing betting, and I should be out of order if I discussed anything else. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate was anxious to disclaim any association with the bookmakers of this country. He did not want their help; the help that he got had come to him against his will. It seemed rather strange, for one who was anxious to be dissociated from this wicked fraternity, that he held out very considerable inducements, in the course of his speech, to that same fraternity not
to withdraw from their present and more recent allegiance to the Labour party. He told us in effect, "It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing away with the turnover tax, but is still maintaining a licence duty and is putting on a telephone duty. If we are returned to power we will do away with all that." He went further. He knows that a certain section of bookmakers, not the most reputable or the most intelligent, are averse to the introduction of that machine the discussion of which Mr. Speaker has ruled to be out of order. But the right hon. Gentleman definitely said that if the Labour party came to power they would do everything that was possible to prevent the erection of these machines. So it seems to me that the theorists of the Labour party, much as they regret the unasked-for assistance of the bookmakers, are still angling for their support in a less direct way, and are still grateful for the motor cars and assistance that the bookmakers give.
I have taken a small part in every one of the Debates on the Betting Tax since the Chancellor of the Exchequer first introduced it. It is a source of gratification to me that for the first time I am able to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done rather than to blame him. Without undue elation I can remind the House that four years ago, when the tax was first introduced, I was the only one, in spite of the claim of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who pointed out that this tax, although in theory it might be excellent, was impossible of collection. I actually explained then the exact process by which I believed the dishonest bookmaker would evade the tax. I was laughed to scorn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that his Customs officials were up to a dodge like that, and that every clerk in every bookmakers' office would he a potential spy. It has turned out as I prophesied, and not as the right hon. Gentleman said. I am very grateful to him for so honestly and candidly admitting now that the tax was a fiasco. But what a pity that at that time the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to take the advice of those who were frank enough to inform him that they had some practical knowledge of this detestable practice—I am not ashamed to admit
it, and there are hundreds of people in this House who would be humbugs if they said they were ashamed to admit it—rather than the advice of people like my hon. and learned Friend sifting behind me, whose knowledge of this subject was purely theoretical and was obtained from hearing evidence and examining witnesses and so on.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: This is not the scheme that I advocated.

Sir F. MEYER: I do not say that this scheme is the one that the hon. and learned Gentleman recommended, but he told the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go ahead, and that if he went at it hard enough he could force the bookmakers to pay and could catch the defaulters. I am saying that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the advice of practical people rather than of theorists, he would never have found himself in the unenviable position in which he finds himself to-day, of having to revoke the tax. The question has been raised whether the bookmakers can afford to pay this telephone duty. I was very glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he would be quite open to persuasion and discussion on the matter. I certainly think the principle of the substitution of the telephone tax is a sound one, and that it would be difficult to find a reputable bookmaker with an office who, if he could not pay £40 a year, would be certain to pay his clients after he had had a bad meeting. There are some small bookmakers, honest, dealing with small bets, to whom a charge of £40 a year, plus £10 for a licence, is so heavy as to make it impossible for them to carry on their trade, but if they have been proved to be honest in the past I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be prepared to consider their case and to make the necessary modifications to meet it.

Mr. SNELL: I would not have risen had not the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) felt it necessary to introduce into the atmosphere of this discussion a tone which does not help us to agree upon this problem. I do not at all accept the mock indignation which he attributed to certain remarks that have been made during the discussion. We know that at Yarmouth they are rather able to draw red herrings across
the track so as to divert people from the real point of view. The thing that strikes me as being important in this matter is just this: Whenever a Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to do something which he thinks will please the country he does something which we on this side want; that is to say, be does something that we have popularised and stood for. I confess with very great humility that it pains me to have to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what he is doing to-day. We protested before this tax was put on, not when it was on. I have never had "a shilling on" in my life, on anything, not even on the number by which the Conservative Government is to be defeated at the next election. That is a rare temptation, but I shall avoid even that. I have taken that attitude, rightly or wrongly. The hon. Member may think it is hypocrisy or may think it is mere mockery and pretence, but to me at any rate it is a very real thing.
I happen to believe that persistent betting is a very great evil, and I think it is the duty of people in public life to try to set an example, by personal habit, in what they wish the nation to do. So I say that I think the hon. Member had better let that aspect of the discussion alone. The point that induced me to rise was the question of the prohibition of betting. The hon. Member said "If the Labour party does not believe in betting, why does it not prohibit betting or seek to prohibit it?" The reason is perfectly obvious. No legislation can go in advance of what the people of a nation want. We in this House are not in the habit of passing legislation which cannot be enforced, which cannot be administered if we pass it. I have the greatest objection to reducing the moral standard of our laws by passing merely dramatic Acts that cannot be administered when passed. That is sufficient answer. I do not believe in betting but many people practise it and we have to wait until the time comes when we can teach them better. In regard to the totalisator I shall watch the experiment with a great deal of interest.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): It has been ruled that the totalisator cannot be discussed on this Resolution.

Mr. SNELL: I thought the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) had referred to it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, but immediately on referring to it, he said that he knew he could not pursue the subject.

Mr. SNELL: In that case, I shall bring my remarks to a close by saying that I think it is the duty of the House as a whole not to make a political jumble of this question of the bookmaker. Our business is to pass such laws as we think will benefit the country as a whole.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am pleased with the remarks of the last speaker because he recognises that there must be sanity in dealing with this question, and that it is a sound principle in legislating, especially on matters where any question of morals emerges, that you must not go too far ahead of the general feeling of the community. I contrast that speech with the intemperate speech made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrym-geour). It is a curious thing that temperance advocates are always intemperate in their language.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am not a temperance advocate.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: No, the hon. Member goes all out for prohibition, but, in that, he is doing what the last speaker warned us against—he is going entirely in advance of public feeling in regard to that particular matter. Like the last speaker, I regard betting as a foolish thing, and I do not indulge in it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I point out that we must first advocate and carry a proposal in the country before it can be carried in Parliament.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: There again the hon. Member makes a mistake. He ought to have learned from the Old Book that, in moral matters, reformation must proceed from within and not by coercion from without. The teaching is as old as the Old Book that the Kingdom of Heaven is within, and it is not to be attained by outward compulsion. When the hon. Member suggests the stopping-of betting by compulsion he is seeking to undermine the moral nature of mankind. The hon. Member has not got away from the view that you can club people over
the head for doing what he thinks they ought not to do. He confuses morality with the policeman. He has the moral point of view of a plain-clothes Hyde Park policeman.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: These seem to be very controversial matters to arise out of a simple proposal for the repeal of the Betting Duty.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I shall not pursue the subject of the dangers of prohibition. I voted against all these betting proposals—including this machine which I must not mention because it is supposed to be out of order. I have no interest whatever in betting but when the Betting Duty was proposed I recognised that there was no half-way house between the complete recognition of betting and leaving it alone altogether. That is what the legislation has done for generations. The legislature has said, "If one man likes to have a bet with another on the colour of somebody's eyes, or on a man's stature, or on the speed of a horse, or on a race between two cockroaches or between a hare and a tortoise or anything else, we cannot interfere; but we shall never allow the law courts to be used for the recovery of debts arising out of such matters." The law courts refused to take cognisance of sponsiones ludicrae, that is, idle games. The courts were not to be used for to decide questions about idle amusements. That is an understandable position. But if we are going to use all the forces of the law to prevent one man making an idle bet with another, we will have one half of the community employed in checking and spying against the other half and as I have said, we will be undermining the moral nature of the people.
The hon. Member for Dundee is logical. He is a prohibitionist. I believe he has said on the platform that he would not allow the Government to have any taxes on excise-able liquor, because they are in partner ship with the devil in exacting such taxes. That is the reason why the hon. Member has been returned for Dundee, a town which persistently refuses to go "dry." They said "We will at least get our liquor cheaper." The hon. Member is, unconsciously, the arch-apostle of cheap drinking. There is no possible way of dealing with betting other than those I have said. There has been a good deal of abuse of bookmakers in connection
with this matter but the bookmakers only evaded the Duty because they felt that it was inequitable and the Government did a far more unfair thing to the bookmaker—and a far more dishonest thing—than any bookmaker did in evading the Duty. It was decided in a court of justice that if a bookmaker made a bet of £2,000 and his client failed to pay him, he could not recover the amount but he was, none the less, still bound to pay the Duty to the Inland Revenue. That was a wicked and infamous state of the law and of course the bookmakers felt that they were not getting justice. It was an extravagantly unjust proposal to make. It was like charging a housebreaker with Super-tax on the proceeds of a jeweller's shop which he had unsuccessfully tried to burgle.
That is why the bookmakers set themselves to evade it. Some of them could wholly evade it and others could not. As I have said, however, there is no halfway house between leaving it alone altogether and going the whole hog and making it a completely legalised business, which would be a fearful business and a nuisance to all of us and would keep the law courts very busy. But there again, you would be legislating far ahead of public opinion. We cannot have prohibition of all the things that we look upon as evils. I would like to see a prohibition on the sale and publication of Sunday papers which do more to demoralise the mass of the community than any other form of Sabbath desecration. Why does not the hon. Member for Dundee come forward with a proposal of that kind? There is only one Sunday newspaper I think and that is the "Observer"—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into all these matters on this Resolution.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not pursue the matter. What has struck me particularly in this Debate is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). He is a very cunning gentleman. I remarked how he washed his hands of this evil and made broad his phylacteries and trimmed the hem of his garments, and thanked Heaven that he was not as these bookmakers and had nothing to do with them. But if ever I heard a bid made for the
motor cars of Battersea and for the votes and the assistance of the bookmakers, it was his speech because he said in effect to them: "We will go further than even the Chancellor and relieve you of all the burdens he has laid upon you."

Mr. B. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The only thing we have to thank them for is the presence here of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) who got in with the bookmakers' support. Now, having once tasted the bait, and having found how valuable is the support of this sporting section of the community, who are a virile section of the community, hon. Members opposite are making a bid for more of it. It was because they felt that they were not getting fair play that this section turned on the Conservative party and now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley says to them, "We will not only take off any tax but we will destroy this new rival which is coming up against you—this betting machine—but, at the same time, we wish the public to understand that we regard you as people with whom we can have nothing to do." I object to hypocrisy on any of these benches but I think I have never had a more signal example of it than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley.

Question put, and agreed to.

Third and Fourth Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [17th APRIL].

ABOLITION OF THE CUSTOMS DUTY OX TEA.

Resolution reported,
That the customs duty chargeable on tea until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, shall cease to be chargeable as from the twenty-second day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel.

FINANCE BILL,

"to reimpose Income Tax and to apply with respect to Income Tax and the annual value of property the like provisions (subject to the exception of certain temporary provisions contained in the Finance Act, 1926, and the Finance Act, 1927), as were applied in the last preceding year, to continue the duties of customs charged by section seven of the Finance Act, 1925, on hops, preparations of hops and beer, and the additional excise drawback payable under the said section, to impose a duty of customs on hop oil, to apply section ninety-eight of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, to hops, and to repeal the duty of excise payable on bets made with a book-maker, the railway passenger duty, and the duty of customs on tea," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 100.]

AGRICULTURAL RATES BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Adjourned accordingly at half after Five o'clock.